creatives_upload_video

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful context (returns video ID, large videos not supported), but omits important behavioral details such as the role of the 'confirm' parameter, permission requirements, or whether duplicate uploads are allowed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and return value, the second highlights a critical limitation. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It leaves out input format expectations, the meaning of 'confirm', failure behavior for large files, and prerequisites like existing ad account/video library. The large-video note is helpful but not sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not explain any of the five parameters (account_id, video_path, name, description, confirm) beyond what their names imply. The only indirect hint is 'ad account' for account_id and 'video' for video_path.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('upload'), resource ('video'), and destination ('ad account's video library'), and notes the return value (video ID). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like creatives_upload_image and creatives_list_videos by the action and resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The core use case is clear, and the note about large videos (>1GB) provides a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it name the chunked upload tool that should be used for large videos.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.